Having been in three of Mr. Lik's galleries in Las Vegas recently, I decided that I didn't care for the majority of his work, which is probably a fair aesthetic judgement. However, what really struck me is the emphasis in the sales pitch about the investment value of each piece, particularly the structuring of each release to maximise the ROI to the buyer. Boasting about the number of prints sold sight-unseen seems to take this work out of the realm of visual art...

Yes, and makes Russ seem even more correct in his views about the world or 'art'!

What I see is an artificial "art" market that, in many ways, is a lot like the Federal Reserve. The "value" of its product is accepted on faith. In one case the object is a dollar bill. In the other it's a photographic print.

What I see is an artificial "art" market that, in many ways, is a lot like the Federal Reserve. The "value" of its product is accepted on faith. In one case the object is a dollar bill. In the other it's a photographic print.

Actually, a terrible analogy ... Russ, keep the politics out of it.

What gives the dollar value is the word and faith of the American people and the government's ability to tax our output - which is enormous and very real.

The yield on the US Gov't 10 Year is about 2.2% ... that tells you everything you need to know.

You can tell me you are right and several trillion dollars of real money is wrong, but I would have no choice but to laugh at you.You've fallen for a bunch of republican claptrap ...

Whereas you've fallen for...?

I fell for Brigitte, but only after a torrid affair with Ava, Susan and even a fan letter to Kathryn.

Statistics: the only one's worth squat are 36-26-36; the rest are figures and figments of the imagination; they are infinitely variable and open to interpretation by any and all interest groups. Playing with them provides careers!

Donít be obtuse, Russ, unless itís beyond you to do anything else. Do you agree or disagree that Lik has had a successful career? Yes or no. If your answer is ďnoĒ then can you provide any evidence to support your claim?

> Is Gursky's photograph fine art, worth 4.3 million?

Are you alluding to his Rhein II which recently sold for $4.3 million? If you are asking about this work can you make a case that the buyer was coerced into buying it? If you can't make that case, then absolutely yes, it was worth the amount paid for it.

If you are alluding to another of Gurskyís works, then state which work.

> If so, what distinguishes it from the average tourist snapshot, which, if this is the standard, ought to be worth at least 4 million and change.

Iím not a professional art appraiser so donít have an authoritative answer, but two words will summarize: Critical acclaim.

> How about Sherman's "Untitled #98?" What do you see in it that distinguishes it from the average family snapshot and makes it worth roughly 3.98 million more than a print you'd get for $5 from the local drugstore?

See above.

> What I see is an artificial "art" market that, in many ways, is a lot like the Federal Reserve. The "value" of its product is accepted on faith. In one case the object is a dollar bill. In the other it's a photographic print.

Iím sure you do see that. However using a weak analogy to attempt a facile point is not very bright. Yet that is exactly what you did.

If you want to claim the value of art is artificial then stick to that point and it will fall on its face when compared to other works by successful artists over history. People are willing to pay a lot for things they like. This is known as a fact. When an artist does successful work after successful work over a span of years to decades, the works tend to draw larger purchase prices. That too, is undisputable.

Itís one thing to not like an artist or their works. Iím fine with that. Bluntly, only an idiot or emotionally disturbed individual would state that obviously successful artists are not, in fact, successful.

The yield on the US Gov't 10 Year is about 2.2% ... that tells you everything you need to know.

What it tells me is that there are people who believe there's a way to pull in all the funny money that's been pushed out the door without bringing on an inflation that'll make the Weimar Republic look like a financially stable government. Or, to put it a different way, what it tells me is that Barnum grossly underestimated the situation, or at least failed to anticipate future increases in the birthrate of the subjects of his dictum.

Donít be obtuse, Russ, unless itís beyond you to do anything else. Do you agree or disagree that Lik has had a successful career? Yes or no. If your answer is ďnoĒ then can you provide any evidence to support your claim?

Sorry, Justan, and I know this is going to blow your mind, but I don't equate "success" with money. I don't agree that Lik has had a "successful" career. I would submit that Gene Smith had a successful career even though he died a pauper. Gene Smith made photographs that will still move people a hundred years from now. Lik makes photographs that people will store in their attics once the novelty has worn off.

Quote

Are you alluding to his Rhein II which recently sold for $4.3 million? If you are asking about this work can you make a case that the buyer was coerced into buying it? If you can't make that case, then absolutely yes, it was worth the amount paid for it.

If you are alluding to another of Gurskyís works, then state which work.

You seem to be having trouble with reading comprehension, Justan. Evidently you didn't comprehend post #33.

Quote

Iím not a professional art appraiser so donít have an authoritative answer, but two words will summarize: Critical acclaim.

Critical acclaim from whom? Ahhh... yes. The "fine art" market people, including "professional art appraisers," those folks who resemble priests in a cult, and who, with their dicta, reinforce the financial faith of the people who buy this kind of crap.

Quote

If you want to claim the value of art is artificial then stick to that point and it will fall on its face when compared to other works by successful artists over history. People are willing to pay a lot for things they like. This is known as a fact. When an artist does successful work after successful work over a span of years to decades, the works tend to draw larger purchase prices. That too, is undisputable.

Itís one thing to not like an artist or their works. Iím fine with that. Bluntly, only an idiot or emotionally disturbed individual would state that obviously successful artists are not, in fact, successful.

You mean "financially successful." That rarely has much to do with the value of a work. As I pointed out earlier, in the "fine art market," value and price don't seem to be coupled -- even loosely.

My own analysis and understanding of markets ... I have a graduate degree in finance and a fair bit of experience in such matters.

Anyone who states that the US Government is at the end of the line with respect to its borrowing capacity isn't paying attention to facts (or what the market is saying) and is either playing a political game or has become the unwitting victim of a bunch of political claptrap.

Fortunately for us, we could borrow A LOT more ... not saying we SHOULD ... just saying we CAN.

And that is why the 10 Year Treasury trades where it does today ... not because people are stupid ... but because the bond market doesn't really pay much attention to the politics of nonsense.

... only an idiot or emotionally disturbed individual would state that obviously successful artists are not, in fact, successful.

What the heck, Nancy!!!?? Really!?

You seriously just called a senior (in every sense) member of this forum "an idiot or emotionally disturbed"!? You can't take a difference in opinion without name calling!? I am all for a good rhetorical fight, but come on, how about some modicum of decency while we are at it? Sheesh!

My own analysis and understanding of markets ... I have a graduate degree in finance and a fair bit of experience in such matters.

Anyone who states that the US Government is at the end of the line with respect to its borrowing capacity isn't paying attention to facts (or what the market is saying) and is either playing a political game or has become the unwitting victim of a bunch of political claptrap.

Fortunately for us, we could borrow A LOT more ... not saying we SHOULD ... just saying we CAN.

And that is why the 10 Year Treasury trades where it does today ... not because people are stupid ... but because the bond market doesn't really pay much attention to the politics of nonsense.

Jeremy, I'm not going to argue with you, and I'm not backing off because of your credentials, which, in most people I find meaningless, though I doubt that would be true in your case. I'm backing off because at this point it's a matter of opinion. All we can do is wait and see what happens. I very much hope I'm wrong and you're right. (But I doubt it.)